Emergency Department Care denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 19 published external-review cases involving Emergency Department Careand overturned the plan’s denial in 63.2%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
19
2008–2025
Overturned
63.2%
12 denials reversed
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 18 and 26 days

What the reviewers wrote

Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.

Where the denial was overturned

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for emergency medical services. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the patient presented to the emergency department. He reported three days of crampy abdominal pain with repeated vomiting. He denied fever, diarrhea, or dysuria. The patient admitted to recent binge alcohol drinking. His past medical history included cyclic vomiting syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, as well as cannabis use. He had a past history of endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures. His vital signs revealed a pulse of 104, blood pressure of 119/63, respirations of 16, and a temperature of 97.8. The patient appeared mildly distressed. His abdomen was soft without tenderness, rebound, or guarding.
Urgent Care · 2017 · IMR UR17-26148
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The parent of an enrollee has requested for emergency services. Findings: The physician reviewer found that at issue in this case is whether a prudent layperson in the patient’s circumstances would have sought immediate medical attention. California law defines an “emergency medical condition” as a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: (1) Placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy; (2) Serious impairment to bodily functions; (3) Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
Urgent Care · 2016 · IMR UR16-23343

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A 29-year-old female enrollee has requested reimbursement for emergency services. The patient is a 29-year-old female with a medical history significant for Crohn’s disease who presented to the emergency department with severe abdominal pain. The pain had been present for 1.5 weeks but had worsened over the prior two days. She was treated and discharged earlier the same day in an in-network emergency department. She was reportedly diagnosed with inflammation in her colon and was to follow-up as an outpatient with her provider. Her pain was noted to be 10/10 in severity at the time of presentation. Her emergency department evaluation included a complete blood count, chemistries, urinalysis, pregnancy test, lipase level and review of the computed tomography (CT) scan results from the earlier emergency room visit.
Urgent Care · 2018 · IMR UR18-28627
A 27-year-old female enrollee has requested emergency services for the treatment of her medical condition. Findings: The physician reviewer found that an emergency is the sudden onset of symptoms of such severity that a prudent layperson would believe her health to be in jeopardy without immediate medical attention. This patient had evidently suffered a dislocation of her left TMJ disc. It had occurred sometime during the week prior to her visit. When she presented to the Emergency Department, the patient was able to eat, swallow and breathe without difficulty. She had not sustained any recent trauma. Although her symptoms were not improving, they had not suddenly worsened. A unilateral or bilateral condylar dislocation can be manually reduced in the Emergency Department, but that was not the diagnosis in this patient.
Urgent Care · 2009 · IMR UR09-9620

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California external-review outcomes. Other state and federal programs have different eligibility rules, processes, and current availability; the rates here do not transfer to those programs or predict an individual result. Excerpts are quoted verbatim from the public record and describe this treatment generally, not any individual case.

How to use this in your appeal

These outcomes describe eligible cases completed through California DMHC’s Independent Medical Review program. They do not estimate the chance that an internal appeal, an external review in another jurisdiction, or your individual case will succeed. Use the record to identify evidence patterns involving Emergency Department Care, then check the rights and deadlines that apply to your plan.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · AGGREGATES + DEIDENTIFIED DECISION EXCERPTS/REFERENCE IDS · METHODOLOGY

Not legal or medical advice. Coverage Rights is a self-help tool that helps you prepare your own appeal. For advice about your specific situation, talk to a licensed attorney or your doctor.

Denied Emergency Department Care? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9